Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Global Warming Exposed!

The MSM is in lockdown, they are waiting for instructions from Al Gore and Suzuki. So all is quiet on the Canadian front, except for bloggers, who are blasting the news that we have been lied to by the econuts. Most Conservative bloggers already knew that, why didn't the lefties?

Talk about deniers, we have taxpayer funded CBC that has yet to even mention the hacking. The left are the deniers, they refuse to acknowledge that the science is not settled. They deny scientists the opportunity to publish their papers showing that the planet is not warming. It's all in the emails that the MSM refuse to write any articles about, for fear of.....what? They are the enablers. They have shouted about drowning polar bears and rising ocean levels, without any statistically, scientifically supported evidence. Computer models are only as good as the data that is input, and from the emails, it sure sounds like the data was corrupted.

Whether CBC agrees with AGW or not, the mere fact that CRU was hacked and over 1000 emails and 3000 documents have been exposed, is huge NEWS don't you think? What kind of NEWS organization does not report NEWS?

I emailed the ombudsman at CBC. I'm interested to see what their excuse is.

I'm sure that I'm not the only one curious to see if some of your 'regulars' have poured over any of the documents uncovered from Climategate and what their opinion is, truthfully.

As far as this disturbing corruption, the Climate Scientists that's reputation these deceitful individuals systematically attempted to destroy, will be the ones that head to the front of the line.

This is not over by a long shot, with or without the North American sheeple media.What say we take all of that money that was going to be spent by governments on bogus science and purchase computers for everyone stuck depending on television and print media......

Those who pointed their finger at others and screeched "Deniers" have now proven themselves to be what they accused other of.

Of course, a lot of these deniers could care less about "science", to them; it’s all “political”, as one of your posters here so aptly demonstrates. Their attitude can be boiled down to "See no evil, Hear no evil, Say no evil”. For these people, it’s as simple as looking the other way.

If their able to pull this off, its going to be “Goodbye modernity, Hello Dark Ages”

The NEW "Inconvenient Truth" ... write PMSH and your MP n email and just say "NO" to Copenhagen.

There needs to be a climate audit on all of the data. If it shows that the data is correct, I will become a believer, if wrong then we turn off the financial tap and instead spend our monies on real problems - like pollution in our lakes and rivers.

John, the "SETTLED" part.Global Warming, allegedly caused by (man made) CO2 emissions, was determined to be settled by these guys, period.If their has been NO WARMING and the science doctored, CO2, is now an unproven cause of anything, let alone a non-existent climate change.

It's fairly evident that either John Cross doesn't understand the issue at hand, or that he's simply pretending that he doesn't.

So I'll do him the courtesy of explaining it to him:

For years, scientists forecasting environmental apocalypse have insisted that they were acting not as activists, but as scientists. That they were merely attempting to avert a disaster that scientific consensus claimed was inevitable under the status quo.

See, John, you can try to point to things like radiation physics or CO2 levels as if they're actually meaningful. In their own way, on peripheral issues (like air quality for CO2, and other human health concerns for radiation physics) they certainly are.

But not on this particular topic. Because, in case you didn't notice, the scientists involved in this scheme fully admitted a very important missing element in this notion of "Global Warming".

Notably, the warming.

Only someone smugly self-assured of their ability to sweep inconvenient truths aside would overlook this. The rest of us can't suppress that delicious feeling of satisfaction at reading about how these scientists couldn't find the evidence for their claims, and so insisted that they just didn't have the right tools to find that evidence.

The problem, of course, being that if you're just out looking for a tool that will give you the temperature findings you want, you'll eventually get the temperature findings you want, in the most explicit sense.

It's evident that mounds of contradictory evidence was simply discounted because it didn't meet the results that these particular scientists wanted. And you can call that what you like, but it isn't proper science.

Then, of course, there's the argument that there are no peer reviewed studies refuting global warming (or, as you'll now almost certainly switch to calling it, "climate change"). It kinda stops holding water as soon as one realizes -- as those of us who have had our doubts about global warming have -- that these activist scientists have long-ago hijacked the peer review process, and demanded that only scientists who agree with them be allowed to participate in that process.

In short, there have been a lot of chicanery tied up in the entire climate change debate. And now that it's been revealed precisely how much chicanery, you'd better believe, John, that this debate is very much on.

Patrick: I appreciate you taking the time to provide such a long reply in response to my posts. Unfortunately I do not know if I can provide an adequate response since there is remarkably little science in it; but I will do what I can.

To begin with, radiation physics has everything to do with the greenhouse effect and our knowledge of radiation physics and the greenhouse effect is about 150 years old. I just provided a list of scientific papers on Dawg’s Blawg that are all over 50 year s old and all talk about the physics of the greenhouse effect. In fact, as a note of historical interest, a great deal of our understanding about CO2 in the atmosphere comes from US military studies in the 50’s looking at heat seeking missiles.

Of course our knowledge continues today and in fact improves as we are able to measure things like infrared emissions better than ever. If I can recommend another site Skeptical Science provides an excellent look at the scientific issues (disclosure, I do co-author and post occasionally at Skeptical Science so I may be biased).

In regards to the current CRU e-mails that have been circulating through the internet. There have been attempts to discredit the scientists involved (and certainly some of the e-mails are not professional) but upon closer examination there is nothing that challenges the science of global warming, there is no evidence that valid contradicting evidence was over looked and there is nothing to say that the peer review process was hijacked.

I would appreciate the opportunity to look in more detail at any of the above if you wish and I certainly hope the debate is “on”. However lets keep it civil and based in science.

Actually, the scientists involved have admitted nothing of the sort. The quote you have read was taken out of context. For all you or I know, they are talking about a week of cold data, or even an hour. There's NO talk about how long this unexplained trend goes on.

However, that sort of detail is unlikely to be really fleshed out until we all get to see EVERYTHING that was leaked.

The rest of the information that I've seen involves discussions which most people use in emails constantly, when they believe they're acting in private.

I just don't think this is anywhere near the deal that everyone is making it out to be.

Anybody else notice how John's trying to skate around the most important detail at hand?

Where's the warming?

And I would agree that the context does indeed matter. For example, if The Doc could explain precisely what the proper context is supposed to be, that would be one thing. But evidently he can't, because he doesn't even seem to know himself.

So tell me, Doc, what are we talking about here? Days? Weeks? Months? Years? Decades? Centuries? If you want to make this kind of a criticism, you'd better be able to make good on it. Other wise, you need to keep your mouth shut because I think everyone here can see that all you're trying to do is invent a context within which the methodological nightmare that is the study in question seems a little less damning.

By the way, you've failed.

Which brings me back to John Cross and his epic fail.

Once again, you either don't understand what is at issue here, or you're simply pretending to not understand.

What these emails have provided evidence for is something that people who were doubtful, either about man-made climate change or about the extent to which climate change was man-made (as of today, I've slid from the latter into the former) have known for a long time: the extent to which activist scientists have perverted the scientific process in order to invent an artificial consensus -- locking those who disagree with them out of the process, and creating an insular peer review environment for their own benefit.

Those of us who respect science understand that the quality of science is determined by how well it responds to dissenting opinions with facts, not by how well it locks them out.

At this point, John, you've been reduced to that tiresome individual who wants to lecture other people about science but hasn't yet figured out for himself that he lacks the crediibility.

Patrick: From the way you expressed your comment I was not sure that you meant warming. However if you want to look at warming, then sure. To begin with here is a link to Skeptical Science. If you look at Figure 3, you can see that just using the data we can see warming, however if you look at Figure 4 you can see what the results are if you remove the el Nino signal from the data. Either way the trend is warming.

Now, temperature is not the only indication of warming. Instead we can look at heat content as well which is done in Figure 1 of that link. So in fact you have multiple lines of evidence for a warming Earth. Now, you do not probably agree with the above which is cool – disagreement makes the world go around. However if you criticize my argument I would ask you to provide arguments and references to back up your points.

In regards to your point about the peer-review process, I would ask you again to provide a link to the e-mails that you feel are important.

Finally, you claim I have no creditability and I would probably agree with that. I am just a name on the computer and you don’t even know if it is my real name. But the only question is are my arguments creditable and that is something that people can answer for themselves.

Now is there something specific you'd like me to educate you about or were you just griping for no particular purpose?

I think we're all rather well educated with your sociopathic Jew hatred, McLelland.

As for the topic of AGW, your team drank the Kyoto Kool-aid and just got caught with its collective pants down. Us so-called 'deniers' warned everyone from the get-go that mixing junk science and the quest for Marxist one world governence was a recipe for disaster.

Right now, you could show anyone a graph of anything. But the pertinent question -- seeming more pertinent now than ever -- is:

Is the graph accurate? Is the science methodologically sound? Has it been conducted honestly?

Because the IPCC relied so heavily on the findings of the ICU, the revelation that has is emerged is basically that the answer to this question is "no" on all three counts.

And I'm very glad that you have pointed to the label of global warming, as compared to the label of climate change.

Climate change, after all, is your fallback position, isn't it, John? When people point out to you that scientists like those at the CRU can't scientifically demonstrate a warming trend -- and, in some cases, notes cooling trends in other parts of the world -- you instead call it climate change.

Don't think we haven't gotten wise to that particular schtick. We've been on to you for a good, long time.

"So tell me, Doc, what are we talking about here? Days? Weeks? Months? Years? Decades? Centuries? If you want to make this kind of a criticism, you'd better be able to make good on it. Other wise, you need to keep your mouth shut because I think everyone here can see that all you're trying to do is invent a context within which the methodological nightmare that is the study in question seems a little less damning.

By the way, you've failed."

Which is curious, since that's PRECISELY the question I just asked you!

There is NO reference to time in the leaked emails. So... YOU DON'T KNOW. Were they MY emails from MY lab, then I'd give you that answer, but if you'd read carefully the English response I gave you, then you'll find that I've clearly asked YOU, the person making the accusations, to give us that answer.

Patrick: I am not sure that you read the link I provided since the studies produced there were not done by the scientists involved in the recent CRU hack. In addition they used the GISS data in addition to (but separate from) the HadCRU.

In regards to the IPCC, I am not sure what you mean by the ICU so I can not comment on its influence. If you can provide some more details we can discuss.

However, the warming of the earth is hardly controversial. Almost every scientist (even the skeptic ones such as Lindzen, Singer, Michaels, McIntyre, Christy, etc.) accept that it is warming – the dispute seems to be in what is responsible for the warming.

In regards to the topic of global warming versus climate change, in fact the phrase climate change was popularized by Luntz when he consulted for the Bush Administration.

"There is NO reference to time in the leaked emails. So... YOU DON'T KNOW. Were they MY emails from MY lab, then I'd give you that answer, but if you'd read carefully the English response I gave you, then you'll find that I've clearly asked YOU, the person making the accusations, to give us that answer."

First off, I sincerely doubt that you have a lab.

And secondly, no. Whatever context you want to invent really doesn't matter. The email clearly alludes to efforts to find means to give these scientists the exact findings that they want.

It doesn't matter whether this method is applied for a period of months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, or seconds. It invalidates their entire study. If you knew the first thing about science you would understand this.

I really have no desire to debate with you weather or not I posses a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry or not - you can't prove I don't, and I can't immediately prove that I do (unless you happen to reside in Ottawa, in which case I'm MORE than happy to present my academic record to you).I do, infact, operate a laboratory in conjunction with the University of Ottawa, and the Ottawa Hospital. I am not a climate scientist, I'm a physical chemist working with embryos.

Either way, I am certain that I have a MUCH better grasp of science, if you honestly think that these emails - no, these FRACTIONS of emails - have any relevance at all.

The moment they specify which numbers, over which period, or anything specific, then we can start to question the science. Until that time, you really have no reason, except political, to doubt the published results.

In the event that these things ARE verified, and the data which are published ARE false, then we can legitimately question the findings.

Patrick: Your arguments seem to be all over the place but I will just pick up on one point - who first popularized the phrase climate change.

Again the Luntz memo was essentially a briefing book on how politicians (Republicans in this case) could talk about environmental problems like global warming in a way that would not put off the public. If you look at page 142 you can see that they recommend using the term "climate change" instead of "global warming".

"I really have no desire to debate with you weather or not I posses a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry or not - you can't prove I don't, and I can't immediately prove that I do (unless you happen to reside in Ottawa, in which case I'm MORE than happy to present my academic record to you).

I do, infact, operate a laboratory in conjunction with the University of Ottawa, and the Ottawa Hospital. I am not a climate scientist, I'm a physical chemist working with embryos."

It's kind of hard to believe much of that coming from someone hiding behind an alias.

"Either way, I am certain that I have a MUCH better grasp of science, if you honestly think that these emails - no, these FRACTIONS of emails - have any relevance at all."

Those emails absolutely have relevance, and if you weren't so busy seizing upon any excuse to deny it, you'd understand that, as well.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

The amount of effort these individuals put into manipulating their results attempting to make anything that didn't fit their hypothesis disappear is evident from the emails -- which the University of East Anglia has confirmed as authentic.

Making the mideival warming period "disappear", "hiding the decline" (it almost sounds like a party game).

"The moment they specify which numbers, over which period, or anything specific, then we can start to question the science. Until that time, you really have no reason, except political, to doubt the published results.

In the event that these things ARE verified, and the data which are published ARE false, then we can legitimately question the findings."

No, no, no, Doc. We can legitimately question the findings now. These individuals invalidated entire data sets, and then refused to release their data in order to cover this up.

Their methodology undermined their entire study.

If this were about science, and not about politics to you, you'd understand this. But the fact that is becoming increasingly evident is that these things have never been about science -- the climate change issue has always been about politics.

Is there something about "we've been on to you for a long, long time" that you just don't get?

John -- does it occur to you that my arguments seem all over the place because I evidently have to argue with multiple reality-denying nitwits at once.

But your argument about who "popularized" the climate change label is not only a canard, but it's specious, to boot.

Perhaps Luntz used the words "climate change". But I have yet to see you present any evidence that he was actually the first one.

Beyond that, there's the matter of who "popularized" the phrase -- well, I hate to break it to you, but it's you and your cohorts who have done much, much more to popularize that phrase, seeing as how you use it as much as -- or more than -- anyone.

It's kind of hard to believe much of that coming from someone hiding behind an alias.

...

Those emails absolutely have relevance, and if you weren't so busy seizing upon any excuse to deny it, you'd understand that, as well.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

The amount of effort these individuals put into manipulating their results attempting to make anything that didn't fit their hypothesis disappear is evident from the emails -- which the University of East Anglia has confirmed as authentic.

Making the mideival warming period "disappear", "hiding the decline" (it almost sounds like a party game).

...

No, no, no, Doc. We can legitimately question the findings now. These individuals invalidated entire data sets, and then refused to release their data in order to cover this up.

Their methodology undermined their entire study.

If this were about science, and not about politics to you, you'd understand this. But the fact that is becoming increasingly evident is that these things have never been about science -- the climate change issue has always been about politics.

Is there something about "we've been on to you for a long, long time" that you just don't get?"

Patrick,

I have no desire to make my identity publically known here, to you or any others reading this blog. As mentioned, I will be happy to show anyone in the Ottawa Region my academic transcript revealing my Ph.D. obtained at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand (my place of birth). If there's anyone reading this blog who would like to independently come see this transcript, let me know. I'll happily present it, and if you'd like, I'll show you around the Embryology lab.

That being said, what does it matter if I have a lab or not?

These trendlines are, by definition, statistical manipulations. There are mathematical methods for dealing with the interpretation of them. As the NIWA group from New Zealand have pointed out, their figures have corrections applied because their stations have physically moved, but the name for the station hasn't changed (the 'Wellington' station, for example, has moved three times. The trends are all the same, but the raw data must be corrected for the changes in altitude, in order for the trends to be taken together).

These emails, as you point out, don't tell you what data, when, or for how long anything has been going on. It also doesn't apply to all data in favour of the global warming hypothesis - not all scientists were involved.

You don't even know what methodology they are suggesting they have used! It's not mentioned in the emails, and so can't really be criticized.

If/when we get specifics, then I'll happily join the chorus of "there's a problem here". Until that time, this is, really, all shrieking about nothing.

Followers

About Me

Politics used to be about going to vote. That all changed as I became aware of all the harm lefties were doing to our social structure. Ordinary families are under assault, and have got to get involved, before it's too late, before society has been changed for good. My blog is an attempt to raise issues that impact families, or ones that just plain bug me!